[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6006-S6010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 742. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to limit
acquisition of land on the 39-mile segment of the Missouri River,
Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as a recreational river, to
acquisition from willing sellers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the wild and scenic rivers act amendment act of 1995
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1991 Congress designated a 39-mile
stretch of the Missouri River from Fort Randall to Lewis and Clark Lake
as a national recreational river. The purpose of the recreational river
designation is to protect the river and its environment, protect
landowner rights, and provide for visitor use.
Recreational river designations preserve an important part of our
Nation's natural heritage. This section, along with other segments of
the Missouri River, provides critical native wildlife habitat, buffers
against floods, and scenic waterways for recreation including fishing
and hunting. For these reasons, South Dakotans feel strongly about the
care and management of the river.
The National Park Service is currently evaluating alternative plans
for managing this segment of the Missouri River. The selected plan will
set goals and mechanisms for the care and public use of the river.
Numerous South Dakotans have commented officially on management
alternatives proposed by the National
[[Page S6007]] Park Service. Some favor plans that emphasize the
protection of wildlife habitat and provision of a primitive river
experience. Others advocate a recreational emphasis with attention
drawn to cultural and historical aspects of the river. Most agree on a
balanced approach to river management.
However, many people who own land adjacent to the river have
expressed concerns about the effectiveness of river protection efforts.
They worry that recreational facilities developed on either side of the
river will threaten the fragile river ecosystem. They are afraid that
the Federal Government will take away portions of their land but will
not do an adequate job of river protection.
I have always believed that ranchers and farmers are the original
environmentalists. They make their living off the land and, therefore,
know how the Earth and its rivers work. For farmers and ranchers, a
healthy Earth makes for a healthy living.
The National Park Service has stated that, at this juncture, it does
not believe that land condemnation will be necessary to accomplish the
designation. While I appreciate the sensitivity of the Park Service to
this issue, concerns persist among landowners over the potential for
land condemnation when the final plan is announced. These fears, which
have created a climate of mistrust, threaten to impede the designation
process. For this process to move forward in a constructive and
productive way, I believe it is important to clarify this issue and
ensure that land condemnation is no longer an option in this process.
Therefore, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. The bill will limit acquisition of land on the 39-mile
segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river to
acquisition from willing sellers.
The bill seeks to ensure that the people who live with the river, who
best know its seasonal ebbs and flows, will retain control of the
management decisions that will affect them and the river. The bill
guarantees that landowners with river property will not have their land
condemned by the National Park Service for the purpose of this
designation.
South Dakotans living along this stretch of the Missouri River are
entitled to be the stewards of their own land. They are eager to
protect this stretch of the river and to maintain its natural beauty.
In this time when States are clamoring for greater control over their
natural environment and the laws that guide its use, it is my hope that
Congress will provide the degree of control that Americans are asking
for along this 39-mile stretch of river. Local landowners must take
responsibility for the health and well-being of their natural
environment. This bill, which applies only to the 39-mile stretch of
the Missouri River from Fort Randall to Lewis and Clark Lake, will
provide that opportunity in this case.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 742
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. LIMITATION OF ACQUISITION OF LAND ON PORTION OF
THE MISSOURI RIVER DESIGNATED AS A RECREATIONAL
RIVER.
Section 3(a)(22) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C. 1274(a)(22)) is amended in the ninth sentence by
striking ``owner:'' and all that follows through the end of
the sentence and inserting ``owner.''
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 743. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax credit for investment necessary to revitalize communities within
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
commercial revitalization tax credit act
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today
is the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1995 [CRTC]. This
legislation will encourage business investment in economically
distressed areas. It will create jobs; expand economic activity;
improve the physical appearance and increase property values in these
areas. My bill would provide a targeted, limited tax credit to
businesses to help defray their costs of construction, expansion, and
renovation. Currently, such an incentive is lacking. This credit would
fill a gap in the range of tools that States and localities need to
make declining neighborhoods good places to do business, to work, and
to reside. Martha Murphree, executive director of the Houston chapter
of the American Institute of Architects said it very well: This
legislation would ``give small businesses leverage to expand and/or
improve their facilities, thus adding value to their establishments and
allowing them to hire more employees.''
In fact, the American Institute of Architects is one of the prime
reasons that this bill came to my attention and I applaud them for
taking this initiative.
Mr. President, this tax credit will help businesses form a
partnership with the Government to help revitalize areas of our country
that have, in some cases, long suffered from neglect.
I firmly believe that we must reduce the size and scope of the
Federal Government. I also firmly believe that there are compassionate
ways to aid our cities without adding more Federal Government
bureaucracy. Expanding tax incentives to enable the private sector to
create real jobs in the economically depressed areas of our country is
an excellent way to combat poverty, crime, despair, and the physical
deterioration of our cities. This legislation encourages empowerment at
the local level. It builds on the empowerment zone/enterprise community
program that is now unfolding in 109 communities across the Nation. My
own State of Texas has five of these specially designated areas in
these cities: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Waco. The
legislation could also benefit additional communities which have had
previously approved and designated economic revitalization areas and
which now receive Federal funds under the Community Development Block
Grant Program.
I have always been a supporter of the pro-growth ideas that are at
the foundation of the enterprise zone concept. But what was enacted in
1993 did not include the broad based incentives for capital formation
that former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp had
envisioned. These specially designated zones primarily encourage wage-
based tax credits to employers who hire an individual to work for a
business within the zone. But there is no existing incentive for a
business within the zone to expand so that larger numbers of people
could be hired. Increasing and upgrading buildings and infrastructure
is a necessary part of improving our cities and combating cycles of
poverty and crime. This is the part of the equation that has been
missing.
This is not intended to be a panacea. I do not anticipate that the
tax credits will be the primary reason for going forward with such an
expansion. However, I do think it can be an important, positive factor
that would give the business man or woman the push needed to go forward
with construction, renovation, or expansion. The credit will mitigate
the inherent risk in business decisions to locate in areas experiencing
a variety of social and economic troubles. The credit will provide an
incentive to invest in these areas, and the result will be new sources
of tax revenues and new jobs.
We have seen how other targeted tax incentives can achieve such
goals. Two excellent examples are the historic rehabilitation tax
credit and the low-income housing tax credit. The historic
rehabilitation tax credit provides a 20-percent credit to the owners of
properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places to
restore their properties for commercial purposes. According to the
National Park Service, the credit has definitely created jobs. In
fiscal year 1994, the credit produced almost 21,000 jobs, among 524
projects, and leveraged $483 million in private investment at a Federal
cost of $97 million. Over the previous 4 fiscal years, $509 million in
tax credits leveraged $2.5 billion in private investment. In the 17
years since Congress enacted the credit, it has generated almost $17
billion in private investment, in more than 25,000 projects. Moreover,
this credit has preserved thousands of this Nation's most precious
architectural treasures. It has also sparked tourism
[[Page S6008]] which in turn has generated millions of tax dollars.
The low-income housing tax credit is the residential housing
construction and rehabilitation partner to the CRTC. It provides a tax
credit of up to 9 percent per year for up to 10 years against the cost
of developing or renovating housing affordable to low- and moderate-
income people. Since its creation in 1986, it has financed 700,000 new
and rehabilitated housing units. At an annual credit amounting to about
$320 million, the low-income housing tax credit attracts about $975
million in private investment a year. According to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, for every 100,000 new housing starts,
170,000 jobs are created. Of these jobs, 40 percent are on-site and
another 20 percent are in trade, transportation, and services that come
primarily from local markets. The National Association of Homebuilders
reported that, for fiscal year 1992, the 92,000 units built or
rehabilitated spun off more that $1.6 billion in wages and taxes.
Clearly, Congress has found that targeted tax credits can serve a
valuable public purpose. My proposal will do the same for economically
depressed communities struggling to attract new business investment,
just as the historic rehabilitation tax credit has done for historic
properties and the low-income housing tax credit has done for
affordable housing. According to the National Association for Counties'
report on business development incentives, it is important to ensure
that tax incentives are crafted to encourage new activity which might
not otherwise occur. Also, the credit must be carefully targeted and
used judiciously. There must be safeguards to ensure accountability.
The tax credit must fit within a State or locality's overall economic
development policy. It must also be designed to stimulate the local
economy, and to promote job growth in economically depressed areas. My
proposal meets all of those standards.
This tax credit will be a cost-efficient instrument of Federal
policy. It will require a minimum of Federal bureaucracy. Most of the
work will be done by the State, which will allocate the tax credits,
and monitor projects to make sure that the proposed benefits are
realized. It will engage the private sector in addressing the economic
development needs of low-income communities. The Government cannot and
should not do the job alone. Private sector involvement helps ensure
success. Because their own funds will be at risk, private investors
will rigorously assess the feasibility of ventures before undertaking
them. This is not a charity or a Government give away program. The
credit will attract additional private lending. Lenders want to see the
kind of private equity investment generated by the CRTC before they
will consider a loan, particularly in an economically distressed
community. The CRTC is flexible. It will work for a wide range of
retail, industrial, health care, and other facilities which are crucial
to making their communities good places to live and to do business. The
CRTC is based on the principal of paying for performance. Tax credits
can be claimed only after the investment is made; the project
completed; the assets remain in use; and income is generated. That
ensures that the taxpayers will get what they are paying for.
The tax credit I propose has the following major features:
The credit may be applied to construction, amounting to at least 25-
percent of the basis of the property, which takes place in specially
designated revitalization areas, including enterprise communities,
empowerment zones, and other areas specially designated according to
Federal, State, or local law.
Qualified taxpayers could choose a one time 20-percent tax credit
against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation. For instance,
if the expansion of a supermarket in the El Paso enterprise community
cost $150,000, the tax credit against income would be $30,000.
Alternatively, the business owner could take a 5-percent credit each
year over a 10-year period.
Annually, the credit would be allocated to each of the States,
according to a formula that takes into account the number of localities
where over half the people earn less than 60 percent of the area's
median income.
Localities would determine their priority projects and forward them
to the State for allocation of credits according to an evaluation
system which the States establish.
The CRTC would provide $1.5 billion in tax credits over 5 years, in
amounts as follows: $100 million in fiscal year 1996, $200 million for
fiscal year 1997, and $400 million each year from fiscal years 1998 to
2000.
Mr. President, the legislation I offer today is designed to attract
over $7 billion of private sector investment to the most troubled
neighborhoods and communities of this Nation. It will create jobs,
generate tax revenue, and improve the physical appearance of these
specially designated revitalization areas. With a minimum of
bureaucracy and through a proven tax mechanism, my initiative will make
a difference to the people and the economies of hundreds of communities
and thousands of neighborhoods across this country.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 743
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Revitalization
Tax Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION TAX CREDIT.
(a) Allowance of Credit.--Section 46 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to investment credit) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) the commercial revitalization credit.''
(b) Commercial Revitalization Credit.--Subpart E of part IV
of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to rules for computing investment credit) is
amended by inserting after section 48 the following new
section:
``SEC. 48A. COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 46, except as
provided in subsection (e), the commercial revitalization
credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to the
applicable percentage of the qualified revitalization
expenditures with respect to any qualified revitalization
building.
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) 20 percent, or
``(B) at the election of the taxpayer, 5 percent for each
taxable year in the credit period.
The election under subparagraph (B), once made, shall be
irrevocable.
``(2) Credit period.--
``(A) In general.--The term `credit period' means, with
respect to any building, the period of 10 taxable years
beginning with the taxable year in which the building is
placed in service.
``(B) Applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules under
paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 42(f) shall apply.
``(c) Qualified Revitalization Buildings and
Expenditures.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified revitalization building.--The term
`qualified revitalization building' means any building (and
its structural components) if--
``(A) such building is located in an eligible commercial
revitalization area,
``(B) a commercial revitalization credit amount is
allocated to the building under subsection (e), and
``(C) depreciation (or amortization in lieu of
depreciation) is allowable with respect to the building.
``(2) Qualified rehabilitation expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified rehabilitation
expenditure' means any amount properly chargeable to capital
account--
``(i) for property for which depreciation is allowable
under section 168 and which is--
``(I) nonresidential real property, or
``(II) an addition or improvement to property described in
subclause (I),
``(ii) in connection with the construction or substantial
rehabilitation or reconstruction of a qualified
revitalization building, and
``(iii) for the acquisition of land in connection with the
qualified revitalization building.
``(B) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount which may be
treated as qualified revitalization expenditures with respect
to any qualified revitalization building for any taxable year
shall not exceed $10,000,000, reduced by any such
expenditures with respect to the building taken into account
by the taxpayer or any predecessor in determining the amount
of the credit under this section for all preceding taxable
years.
[[Page S6009]] ``(C) Certain expenditures not included.--
The term `qualified revitalization expenditure' does not
include--
``(i) Straight line depreciation must be used.--Any
expenditure (other than with respect to land acquisitions)
with respect to which the taxpayer does not use the straight
line method over a recovery period determined under
subsection (c) or (g) of section 168. The preceding sentence
shall not apply to any expenditure to the extent the
alternative depreciation system of section 168(g) applies to
such expenditure by reason of subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 168(g)(1).
``(ii) Acquisition costs.--The costs of acquiring any
building or interest therein and any land in connection with
such building to the extent that such costs exceed 30 percent
of the qualified revitalization expenditures determined
without regard to this clause.
``(iii) Other credits.--Any expenditure which the taxpayer
may take into account in computing any other credit allowable
under this part unless the taxpayer elects to take the
expenditure into account only for purposes of this section.
``(3) Eligible commercial revitalization area.--The term
`eligible commercial revitalization area' means--
``(A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community
designated under subchapter U,
``(B) any area established pursuant to any consolidated
planning process for the use of Federal housing and community
development funds, and
``(C) any other specially designated commercial
revitalization district established by any State or local
government, which is a low-income census tract or low-income
nonmetropolitan area (as defined in subsection (e)(2)(C)) and
is not primarily a nonresidential central business district.
``(4) Substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction.--For
purposes of this subsection, a rehabilitation or
reconstruction shall be treated as a substantial
rehabilitation or reconstruction only if the qualified
revitalization expenditures in connection with the
rehabilitation or reconstruction exceed 25 percent of the
fair market value of the building (and its structural
components) immediately before the rehabilitation or
reconstruction.
``(d) When Expenditures Taken Into Account.--
``(1) In general.--Qualified revitalization expenditures
with respect to any qualified revitalization building shall
be taken into account for the taxable year in which the
qualified rehabilitated building is placed in service. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, a substantial
rehabilitation or reconstruction of a building shall be
treated as a separate building.
``(2) Progress expenditure payments.--Rules similar to the
rules of subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 47 shall apply
for purposes of this section.
``(e) Limitation on Aggregate Credits Allowable With
Respect To Buildings Located in a State.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this section for any taxable year with respect to any
building shall not exceed the commercial revitalization
credit amount (in the case of an amount determined under
subsection (b)(1)(B), the present value of such amount as
determined under the rules of section 42(b)(2)(C)) allocated
to such building under this subsection by the commercial
revitalization credit agency. Such allocation shall be made
at the same time and in the same manner as under paragraphs
(1) and (7) of section 42(h).
``(2) Commercial revitalization credit amount for
agencies.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate commercial revitalization
credit amount which a commercial revitalization credit agency
may allocate for any calendar year is the portion of the
State commercial revitalization credit ceiling allocated
under this paragraph for such calendar year for such agency.
``(B) State commercial revitalization credit ceiling.--
``(i) In general.--The State commercial revitalization
credit ceiling applicable to any State for any calendar year
is an amount which bears the same ratio to the national
ceiling for the calendar year as the population of low-income
census tracts and low-income nonmetropolitan areas within the
State bears to the population of such tracts and areas within
all States.
``(ii) National ceiling.--For purposes of clause (i), the
national ceiling is $100,000,000 for 1996, $200,000,000 for
1997, and $400,000,000 for calendar years after 1997.
``(iii) Other special rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G) of section 42(h)(3)
shall apply for purposes of this subsection.
``(C) Low-income areas.--For purposes of subparagraph (B),
the terms `low-income census tract' and `low-income
nonmetropolitan area' mean a tract or area in which,
according to the most recent census data available, at least
50 percent of residents earned no more than 60 percent of the
median household income for the applicable Metropolitan
Standard Area, Consolidated Metropolitan Standard Area, or
all nonmetropolitan areas in the State.
``(D) Commercial revitalization credit agency.--For
purposes of this section, the term `commercial revitalization
credit agency' means any agency authorized by a State to
carry out this section.
``(E) State.--For purposes of this section, the term
`State' includes a possession of the United States.
``(f) Responsibilities of Commercial Revitalization Credit
Agencies.--
``(1) Plans for allocation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the commercial revitalization
credit dollar amount with respect to any building shall be
zero unless--
``(A) such amount was allocated pursuant to a qualified
allocation plan of the commercial revitalization credit
agency which is approved by the governmental unit (in
accordance with rules similar to the rules of section
147(f)(2) (other than subparagraph (B)(ii) thereof)) of which
such agency is a part, and
``(B) such agency notifies the chief executive officer (or
its equivalent) of the local jurisdiction within which the
building is located of such project and provides such
individual a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
project.
``(2) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified allocation plan' means any
plan--
``(A) which sets forth selection criteria to be used to
determine priorities of the commercial revitalization credit
agency which are appropriate to local conditions,
``(B) which considers--
``(i) the degree to which a project contributes to the
implementation of a strategic plan that is devised for an
eligible commercial revitalization area through a citizen
participation process,
``(ii) the amount of any increase in permanent, full-time
employment by reason of any project, and
``(iii) the active involvement of residents and nonprofit
groups within the eligible commercial revitalization area,
and
``(C) which provides a procedure that the agency (or its
agent) will follow in monitoring for compliance with this
section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
building placed in service after December 31, 2000.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 39(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) No carryback of section 48a credit before
enactment.--No portion of the unused business credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to any commercial
revitalization credit determined under section 48A may be
carried back to a taxable year ending before the date of the
enactment of section 48A.''
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 48(a)(2) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``or commercial revitalization'' after
``rehabilitation'' each place it appears in the text and
heading thereof.
(3) Subparagraph (C) of section 49(a)(1) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) the basis of any qualified revitalization building
attributable to qualified revitalization expenditures.''
(4) Paragraph (2) of section 50(a) of such Code is amended
by inserting ``or 48A(d)(2)'' after ``section 47(d)'' each
place it appears.
(5) Subparagraph (B) of section 50(a)(2) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``A
similar rule shall apply for purposes of section 48A.''
(6) Paragraph (2) of section 50(b) of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) a qualified revitalization building to the extent of
the portion of the basis which is attributable to qualified
revitalization expenditures.''
(7) Subparagraph (C) of section 50(b)(4) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``or commercial revitalization'' after
``rehabilitated'' each place it appears in the text or
heading thereof.
(8) Subparagraph (C) of section 469(i)(3) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or section 48A'' after ``section 42'',
and
(B) by striking ``credit'' in the heading and inserting
``and commercial revitalization credits''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
1995.
______
By Mr. CRAIG.
S. 744. A bill to authorize minors who are under the child labor
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are under 18
years of age to load materials into balers and compactors that meet
appropriate American National Standards Institute design safety
standards; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the balers and compactors safety standards modernization act
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce the Balers and Compactors
Safety Standards Modernization Act.
This bill would make long-overdue revisions to safety standards set
by the Department of Labor's Hazardous Occupation Order Number 12 (HO
12).
HO 12 is a regulation issued by DOL in 1954 to protect employees who
are under 18 years of age. In brief, it specifically prohibits minors
from operating more than a dozen different types
[[Page S6010]] of equipment in the workplace. I certainly agree with
the underlying purpose of HO 12, which is that younger workers should
not be allowed to operate certain types of machinery when doing so
would place them in harm's way.
Specifically, this Safety Standards Modernization Act would address
problems caused by DOL's interpretation and enforcement of HO 12, with
respect to cardboard balers and compactors that commonly are used in
supermarkets, grocery stores, and other retail establishments, for
preparing and bundling cardboard and paper materials for recycling
purposes.
DOL's current interpretation of HO 12 goes so far as to prohibit
minors from placing, tossing, or loading cardboard or paper materials
into a baler or compactor. Such activities take place during a loading
phase that is prior to, and separate from, the actual operation of the
machine. While such a loading-phase prohibition may have made sense
back in 1954, when HO 12 was originally issued, such is not the case
today.
Technology has brought about significant safety advancements to
balers and compactors. Much like a household microwave oven or trash
compactor, the newest generation of balers now in use in grocery stores
and other locations cannot be engaged and operated during the loading
phase.
This important design feature is a result of safety standards issued
by the American National Standards Institute [ANSI]. An employee is not
at risk when placing cardboard materials into a baler that is in
compliance with ANSI standards Z.245.5 1990, or putting paper materials
into a compactor that is in compliance with ANSI standards Z245.2 1992.
Nonetheless, DOL treats all balers and compactors the same, and
considers the placement of materials into these machines, if performed
by a minor, to be a clear-cut violation of HO 12. Each violation can
result in a fine of $10,000 against an employer.
If DOL could produce injury data showing that workers are at risk
when loading materials into a machine that meets current ANSI
standards, I might agree that the current interpretation and
enforcement of HO 12 is warranted. However, DOL has acknowledged that
it has no injury data for balers that meet the ANSI standard.
Despite the complete lack of evidence that workers are at risk in
these situations, DOL has cited numerous supermarkets throughout the
United States and has assessed several million dollars in fines against
grocery owners in recent years.
It is difficult to understand the logic behind this kind of
enforcement when, in fact, a review of 8,000 compensation cases
involving injuries over the past 7 years by the Waste Equipment
Technology Association failed to find a single injury attributable to a
baler that meets current ANSI safety standards.
The present, rigid interpretation of HO 12 is bad regulatory policy
and should not continue. It benefits no one, especially workers. Worker
protection is not enhanced by issuing large fines against employers
that use balers meeting current safety standards.
Such a policy also is clearly inconsistent with the goal of creating
employment opportunities for young people. Because so many grocers have
been fined by DOL for loading violations, the industry has become less
inclined to hire younger workers.
Originally, DOL applied this interpretation of HO 12 to cardboard
balers. As burdensome and objectionable as this policy has been,
concerning cardboard balers, DOL more recently went a step farther and
now is applying the same interpretation to compactors, a similar piece
of equipment that retail establishments use to recycle paper materials.
Without the benefit of formal rulemaking and the opportunity for
interested parties to file comments, DOL extended the jurisdiction of
HO 12 to compactors at the beginning of 1994, and employers found
themselves subjected to fines when it was documented that a minor had
placed materials into a compactor.
This is one more example of the ``speed trap'' mentality of Federal
agencies, and the Department of Labor, in particular. Balers and
compactors are both governed by ANSI safety standards and cannot be
engaged or operated during the loading phase. This means, to re-
emphasize, that employees loading machines meeting ANSI standards are
not at risk.
Clearly, DOL's position on HO 12, as it relates to cardboard balers
and compactors, is not in step with the technology being used in the
workplace. In view of the fact that this equipment can not be operated
during the loading phase, there is no compelling reason to continue
treating the placement of materials by minors a violation of HO 12.
The old joke goes that, when something is difficult to accomplish,
you compare it to passing an Act of Congress. If there is one process
more intractable, it must be modernizing Federal agency regulations.
HO 12 needs to be revised so that the placement of paper or cardboard
materials into a baler or compactor that meets its respective ANSI
safety standards by an employee under age 18 is no longer a violation
of the regulation. The loading phase should be completely distinguished
from the operating phase of the machine.
While DOL has solicited comments on its child labor regulations, in
general, Congress does not need to, and should not, wait any longer for
this one, simple revision to HO 12. Throughout at least two
administrations, DOL has promised to reconsider the rule. Their latest
offering is the goal of issuing a new, final regulation by February
1996, even through we have yet to see a proposed revision to the rule.
We don't need months of agency hearings and reams of paper. I've seen
these grocery store balers operate. What's needed is a simple, common-
sense change, and the bill I'm introducing today would make that change
in a simple, straightforward way.
The many young people who will not have summer jobs this year under
DOL's status quo interpretation of HO 12 should not have to wait
another year or more for the glacier-like process of regulatory change
to catch up with technology.
By promptly acting on the bill I'm introducing today, we can open up
thousands of youth summer job opportunities without relying on
government programs and grants.
The jobs are there. The young people are there. All we need to do is
remove one, unnecessary, regulatory wall between them.
This bill would provide a narrow amendment to the Fair Labor
Standards Act that would overrule DOL's interpretation of HO 12 in the
limited and appropriate way I've described. My bill would not change
the critically important safety focus of the regulation. In fact, I
agree that DOL should remain vigilant and enforce the regulation in
case when the safety of young workers is compromised by use of
equipment that does not meet current ANSI safety standards.
The bill would provide only that young workers would be allowed to
operate balers and compactors that meet the current industry standards
that ensure complete safety in their operation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of my bill
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 744
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Compactors and Balers Safety
Standard Modernization''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO LOAD MATERIALS INTO BALERS
AND COMPACTORS.
In the administration of the child labor provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, minors under 18 years of
age shall be permitted to--
(1) load materials into baling equipment that is in
compliance with the American National Standards Institute
safety standard ANSI Z245.5 1990, and
(2) load materials into a compacter that is in compliance
with the American National Standards Institute safety
standard ANSI Z245.2 1992.
____________________